History, Politics And Current Affairs

Opinions expressed here are personal views of contributors and do not necessarily represent the companies, organizations or governments they work for. Nor do they necessarily represent those of the Board Administration.
It is currently Sun Jan 21, 2018 5:50 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 12:09 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:55 am
Posts: 17833
Location: Chicagoland
U.S. commander admits mistake in bombing Afghan hospital

Does anyone have any info on the investigation? The social media is going batspit crazy over this.

I must say, I'm disappointed in Medecins Sans Frontiers. They appear to be politicizing this tragedy from the outset. I'm not sure whether we can consider then neutral, any more.



Last Updated Oct 6, 2015 11:31 AM EDT

WASHINGTON - The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan says the recent airstrike on a hospital in the northern city of Kunduz was a mistake.

Gen. John F. Campbell told a Senate committee that Afghan forces requested air support Saturday while engaged in combat with Taliban fighters in the city of Kunduz, communicating with U.S. special operations troops at the scene.

Those U.S. forces were in contact with the AC-130 gunship that fired on the hospital, Campbell said.

"To be clear, the decision to provide (airstrikes) was a U.S. decision, made within the U.S. chain of command," Campbell said. "The hospital was mistakenly struck. We would never intentionally target a protected medical facility."

Appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Campbell said he could not provide more details about what happened, including who may have failed to follow procedures for avoiding attacks on hospitals. He said he must await the outcome of multiple investigations.

Campbell's testimony came three days after the airstrike on the medical clinic in which 10 patients and 12 staff members were killed by the devastating firepower of an AC-130 gunship. The attack went on for an hour.
The clinic was operated by the medical charity Doctors Without Borders.

Campbell said Monday that the airstrike was requested by Afghan forces who reported being under Taliban fire.

The Pentagon changed its story on how and why the attack happened as news of the incident spread. At first, officials claimed the airstrike was called in by U.S. forces under threat while working with Afghan government troops trying to retake Kunduz from the Taliban. It was only some time later that officials said the airstrike was called in by the Afghans themselves.

Members of Doctors Without Borders have taken to calling the incident a "war crime."

The executive director of the UK branch of Doctors Without Borders, Vickie Hawkins, dismissed Campbell's explanation in an interview with Public Radio International, echoing earlier statements from the organization on how they see the incident.

"Under the rules of international humanitarian law, a hospital is a hospital and the people inside are patients -- to target a medical facility in this way is a violation of that, whatever the circumstances," Hawkins told PRI.

The charity said that the main hospital building in the sprawling compound, "where medical personnel were caring for patients, was repeatedly and very precisely hit during each aerial raid, while the rest of the compound was left mostly untouched." It earlier said that bombing had lasted an hour, and repeated calls to NATO and the U.S. military to call off the strikes had failed.

On Sunday, the organization announced that three injured hospital patients had died, bringing the total death toll to 22, including 12 hospital staffers. It earlier said that three of the dead were children in the intensive care unit. The charity also announced it was withdrawing from Kunduz.

Afghan officials said earlier that helicopter gunships had returned fire from Taliban fighters who were hiding in the hospital. But Kate Stegeman, the charity's communications manager, said there were no insurgents in the facility at the time of the bombing.

The attack was a "grave violation of international humanitarian law," it added. The MSF statement made no mention of whether Taliban fighters were present in the hospital.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-commande ... -hospital/

_________________
- Dennis

Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival."
-Sir Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 12:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 5748
Lesson to be learned:

In wartime, whether declared or not, $#** happens.

Regardless of the best intentions of anyone involved, regardless of what ordnance is being used, and regardless of the protected status of the fan, it still happens.

_________________
(English doesn't) just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.--James D. Nicoll


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 12:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 6:48 pm
Posts: 4266
Location: UK
IIRC, MSF have no tolerance for people using their premises for weapon caches, outgoing fire etc.

Sounds like either the fire-call co-ords were screwed by the caller --Didn't a Marine / SF team die of 'friendly fire' when their GPS rebooted skew after battery change ??-- or the hospital fell victim to a faction fight.

'Beggar your neighbour' time ? Local commander has now lost the kudos of a hospital on his 'patch'. If hospital is rebuilt, there'll be new faces at the table...

What *will* take some research is claim that the attack continued for an hour (!!!) while USAF ignored *repeated* calls from MSF.

_________________
'P for Pleistocene' A camp-out goes impossibly wrong...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 1:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:48 am
Posts: 7252
Location: BB-61 (the ship, not the state)
Nik_SpeakerToCats wrote:
What *will* take some research is claim that the attack continued for an hour (!!!) while USAF ignored *repeated* calls from MSF.

I'm not so sure that this is inexplicable. If nothing else, how did MSF call the USAF? The main number on their website? That would take weeks to get through. Even if they had a local contact, how sure could the USAF be that they weren't the Taliban pretending to be MSF?

_________________
Intelligence can be identified by its rejection of self-deception; by its willingness to admit that it might be wrong; by its insistence upon evidence rather than mere impression; by reasoning that cannot easily be assailed. - Orson Scott Card


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 3:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:31 pm
Posts: 246
I believe according to the Convention the hospital has to be declared and agreed upon by all belligerents. I'd be surprised if the Taliban had, but did the Air Force actually know about it at the time?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 5:26 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:55 am
Posts: 17833
Location: Chicagoland
SpookyZ wrote:
I believe according to the Convention the hospital has to be declared and agreed upon by all belligerents. I'd be surprised if the Taliban had, but did the Air Force actually know about it at the time?


This is a good question. On another site, a former USAF pilot stated that the coordinates would be programmed into the aircraft's targeting system as a no fire site. Whether that happened, I haven't a clue.



Nik_SpeakerToCats wrote:
IIRC, MSF have no tolerance for people using their premises for weapon caches, outgoing fire etc.


Lack of tolerance only goes so far when they have guns and you do not.

_________________
- Dennis

Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival."
-Sir Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 11:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:54 pm
Posts: 1103
Location: Kerosycronous Orbit
edgeplay_cgo wrote:
SpookyZ wrote:
I believe according to the Convention the hospital has to be declared and agreed upon by all belligerents. I'd be surprised if the Taliban had, but did the Air Force actually know about it at the time?


This is a good question. On another site, a former USAF pilot stated that the coordinates would be programmed into the aircraft's targeting system as a no fire site. Whether that happened, I haven't a clue.


Everything serious I've seen about this is that it was an AC-130 mission, which explains the time frame that people on the ground were claiming.

_________________
Everyone who uses a computer frequently has had, from time to time, a mad desire to attack the precocious abacus with a axe. -John Drury Clark Ignition!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 08, 2015 2:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:45 am
Posts: 5155
Location: EGUD
edgeplay_cgo wrote:
I must say, I'm disappointed in Medecins Sans Frontiers. They appear to be politicizing this tragedy from the outset. I'm not sure whether we can consider then neutral, any more.

It's a bit hard to be neutral when people are shooting at you and killing your staff ;)

_________________
War is less costly than servitude. In the end, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau. - Jean Dutourd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 08, 2015 8:31 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:55 am
Posts: 17833
Location: Chicagoland
pdf27 wrote:
edgeplay_cgo wrote:
I must say, I'm disappointed in Medecins Sans Frontiers. They appear to be politicizing this tragedy from the outset. I'm not sure whether we can consider then neutral, any more.

It's a bit hard to be neutral when people are shooting at you and killing your staff ;)


If they are not neutral, then we should not go out of our way to protect them. Was their hospital marked as required by the Geneva Convention?

_________________
- Dennis

Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival."
-Sir Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 08, 2015 9:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:45 am
Posts: 5155
Location: EGUD
edgeplay_cgo wrote:
If they are not neutral, then we should not go out of our way to protect them. Was their hospital marked as required by the Geneva Convention?

Not relevant - that stipulation is required of belligerents, not third parties. If you want to tell them that you're going to bomb them unless they install AA guns in all their hospitals, go right ahead.
In any case, they do appear to have clearly labelled it as a hospital from street level - and from memory the GC requirement is only for a fixed distinctive sign recognisable from a distance, which this would appear to meet. I'm not aware of any stipulations for how it must be marked to be clear from the air, but they repeatedly provided the US military with GPS coordinates for the location (or claim to have done so, which should be easily falsifiable - see http://www.msf.org/topics/kunduz-hospital-airstrike#GPS)
Image

_________________
War is less costly than servitude. In the end, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau. - Jean Dutourd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 08, 2015 10:24 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:55 am
Posts: 17833
Location: Chicagoland
OK, I'll stipulate that the hospital was properly marked. That was a neutral question. If they had mounted AAA, then it would be a legitimate target.

This seems to go back to whether we had the right coordinates, and how those prohibited targets are communicated to the flyboys.

An organization that considers itself mature enough to operate in a war zone should know that stuff happens when people are playing with explosives. Politicizing the tragedy right out of the box belies that maturity. Political words have meanings. You don't want to gratuitously piss off the belligerents who you may someday want to rely on for support or rescue. MSF has lost a lot of points, in my book, for that.

_________________
- Dennis

Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival."
-Sir Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 08, 2015 10:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10917
One thing worth noting by the way is that the aircraft was an AC-130. AC-130s don't drop bombs. They shoot at things with guns. Most notably a 105mm howitzer. AC-130s carry a lot of surveillance and target identification equipment and (by and large) they don't shoot at things lightly. The fact that an AC-130 made several passes at the target strongly implies the crew saw something worth shooting at.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 08, 2015 11:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:02 am
Posts: 16155
Location: Planet Earth, Milky Way, Universe
Weren't "Doctors Without Borders" something of a KGB front years ago?? May very well be infiltrated by Jihadists by now, so could have been a set up.

_________________
I am Charlie


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 08, 2015 12:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:45 am
Posts: 5155
Location: EGUD
Francis Urquhart wrote:
One thing worth noting by the way is that the aircraft was an AC-130. AC-130s don't drop bombs. They shoot at things with guns. Most notably a 105mm howitzer. AC-130s carry a lot of surveillance and target identification equipment and (by and large) they don't shoot at things lightly. The fact that an AC-130 made several passes at the target strongly implies the crew saw something worth shooting at.

I do wonder if this wasn't something of a stitch-up: they very precisely hit the main surgical building and left the rest alone. That's exactly the building you want to hit for maximum propaganda value against the US. At the same time MSF are hardly going to be complicit in their own staff being killed - you may get cases of them blowing stuff out of proportion to support the political views of many of the staff, but that is very different from deliberate murder.
My suspicion is that rather than seeing something suspicious and opening fire on it (which given the number of armed men on the US side in Afghanistan is likely under the ROE to force them to check against a list of prohibited target coordinates - where this would have shown up as a hospital and caused them to check up the chain of command) the building was somehow marked as a target from the ground and they were told about it. It's known that the US has handed out IR blinkers to a number of agents in the North-West Frontier Province in Pakistan and used them to guide in Predator strikes. If the AC-130 was briefed that a high value target was going to be in a building on the outskirts of Kunduz and that this would be marked by an IR strobe, it is entirely possible that they would just attack the target after positively identifying the strobe, rather than checking it against the list of prohibited sites first.
Such an attack would fit right in with Taliban behaviour, as well as that of various warlords in the area - trying to discredit the US, to get them to place less reliance on IR strobes placed by agents, and if in the process they kill off some members of a western aid agency, so much the better - they are considered something of a threat in and of themselves.

_________________
War is less costly than servitude. In the end, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau. - Jean Dutourd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 08, 2015 8:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 10:04 am
Posts: 360
Location: Dallas
Quote:
One thing worth noting by the way is that the aircraft was an AC-130. AC-130s don't drop bombs. They shoot at things with guns. Most notably a 105mm howitzer


That's what I thought when I first saw the word bomb. Figured if anything blew up it was an taliban ammo dump set off by the 105.

But...it's been 40+years since I worked on the bird so I checked.
Turns out that the AC-130J Ghostrider does mount GBU-39s under the wings.
The AC-130W Stinger II carries The GBU-39s, GBU-44/B and...

Quote:
AC-130Ws crews have added a 105-millimeter cannon and the ability to carry 250lb bombs on wing hardpoints to the aircraft.


As for the H models I worked on, they've apparently been retired.

http://www.americanspecialops.com/usaf- ... gon-spear/
http://www.americanspecialops.com/usaf- ... hostrider/

Paul


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2015 1:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:45 am
Posts: 5155
Location: EGUD
Remember that the "witnesses" are not professional soldiers - they're medical types who were mostly asleep in other buildings at the time. If it goes bang and comes down from an aeroplane above them, it's a bomb.

_________________
War is less costly than servitude. In the end, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau. - Jean Dutourd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Oct 17, 2015 6:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:35 am
Posts: 5656
Location: Sweden
It's looking pretty damning so far if one is to believe the media reports. Obviously things could change if new information come to light but it's not looking like the proudest moment of the US armed forces at the moment.
Quote:
The Doctors Without Borders Bombing Is Looking More and More Like a War Crime

492437692-the-damaged-interior-of-the-hospital-in-which-the
The damaged interior of the hospital in which theMédecins Sans Frontières medical charity operated is seen on Oct. 13, 2015, following an airstrike in Kunduz, Afghanistan.
Photo by STR/AFP/Getty Images

Whether or not the U.S. airstrike that killed 22 people at a hospital run by Doctors Without Borders (MSF) near Kunduz, Afghanistan, on Oct. 3 was a violation of international humanitarian law depends in large part on whether the military knew the site was a hospital, and if not, whether military officials took adequate steps to figure out what they were bombing. The latest reporting on the incident is not encouraging.

Joshua KeatingJoshua Keating
Joshua Keating is a staff writer at Slate focusing on international affairs.

On NBC Nightly News on Thursday, Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski reported that, based on the accounts of Defense Department sources, cockpit recordings from the AC-130 gunship involved in the incident “reveal that the crew actually questioned whether the airstrike was legal.” He also quoted a U.S. defense official suggesting that the attack “may in fact amount to a war crime.” The video and audio cockpit recordings of the incident, which feature conversations between the plane’s crew and U.S. troops on the ground, are at the center of the military’s investigation into the incident, as the Daily Beast’s Nancy Youssef reported last week.* The recordings have not been released publicly or even to the members of Congress who received a classified briefing on the incident.

Advertisement
The AP also reported on Thursday that, before the bombing, U.S. special operations analysts had been gathering information on the hospital compound because they believed it was being used by a Pakistani operative to coordinate Taliban activity during the battle for Kunduz. It’s not clear whether the crew on the plane or the commanders who ordered the attack were aware that this intelligence was being gathered, but it is further evidence that the site was known to U.S. forces as a hospital. MSF also says it called the Pentagon while the attack was taking place. The defense official quoted in the NBC report acknowledged that the call took place, but the information was evidently not passed along to Afghanistan.

While MSF acknowledges that it treated unarmed Taliban fighters at the hospital, it denies that the facility was being used by any armed group. There’s no evidence so far to suggest that any of those killed in the bombing were Pakistani. And even if the operatives were there, it would hardly justify complete destruction of a known hospital filled with civilians.

The U.S. explanation for how the incident took place has shifted several times and the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John Campbell, reportedly believes that U.S. troops did not follow proper procedure. MSF, which has alleged that a war crime took place, is calling on the U.S. and Afghan governments to consent to an independent investigation, a request that has so far been rebuffed.

MSF has also charged that a U.S. tank that forced its way into the hospital compound on Thursday carrying a "U.S./NATO/Afghan investigation team," damaged property at the site including potential evidence. A U.S. coalition spokesman told NBC, "We are aware of the incident and are looking into what happened.” One more for the growing list of questions.

*Correction, Oct. 16, 2015: This post originally misstated the publication date of a Daily Beast article by Nancy Youssef. It was published on Oct. 10, not Oct. 15.

_________________
The Night Watch - A Star Trek Story


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Oct 18, 2015 10:25 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:55 am
Posts: 17833
Location: Chicagoland
I'd not consider an article in Slate to be "damning." I'm more interested in whether and how MSF coordinated with our local forces, than whether they called someone in the Pentagon. That is a long and slow feedback loop.

I'd also be curious to hear the voice recording, to determine what the AC-130 crew saw and heard, and hear what the targeteers on the plane saw and heard.

Why did a tank have to "break into" the compound? Were they barred at the front door?

MSF sounds decidedly non-neutral, here.

_________________
- Dennis

Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival."
-Sir Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Oct 18, 2015 10:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:45 am
Posts: 5155
Location: EGUD
edgeplay_cgo wrote:
I'd not consider an article in Slate to be "damning." I'm more interested in whether and how MSF coordinated with our local forces, than whether they called someone in the Pentagon. That is a long and slow feedback loop.

Unless the Pentagon gave MSF a local phone number to call, where else are they going to go? Legally, it isn't up to MSF to work out who the local guy doing targeting is and make sure he knows exactly where they are, but up to the US Armed Forces to find MSF and ensure where they are is fully understood. By regularly telling the Pentagon exactly where they are and providing GPS coordinates MSF are going above and beyond what they are obliged to do under the GCs.

edgeplay_cgo wrote:
Why did a tank have to "break into" the compound? Were they barred at the front door?

It was an APC. Given that it belonged to a power which had just shot up the hospital, and that as a neutral hospital it isn't supposed to permit armed parties to the conflict to enter (doing so would lose it protection under the GCs) then permitting an armoured vehicle to enter is emphatically not something they should do.

edgeplay_cgo wrote:
MSF sounds decidedly non-neutral, here.

No, it sounds like they're following exactly what the GC requires of them as a neutral party.

_________________
War is less costly than servitude. In the end, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau. - Jean Dutourd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Oct 18, 2015 2:53 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:55 am
Posts: 17833
Location: Chicagoland
pdf27 wrote:
edgeplay_cgo wrote:
I'd not consider an article in Slate to be "damning." I'm more interested in whether and how MSF coordinated with our local forces, than whether they called someone in the Pentagon. That is a long and slow feedback loop.

Unless the Pentagon gave MSF a local phone number to call, where else are they going to go? Legally, it isn't up to MSF to work out who the local guy doing targeting is and make sure he knows exactly where they are, but up to the US Armed Forces to find MSF and ensure where they are is fully understood. By regularly telling the Pentagon exactly where they are and providing GPS coordinates MSF are going above and beyond what they are obliged to do under the GCs.


Not so. The Afghan Government would have been responsible for informing the combatants of the location of hospitals and other protected areas. Calling the Pentagon, unless they had a particular hot line, is a good way to spend a couple of hours for the word to get through. We don't call off military operations because some voice comes out of a telephone.

The Hospital also has the obligation to reveal its location, including by marking itself against aerial attack.

From the Fourth Geneva Convention:
Quote:
Art. 18. Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.

States which are Parties to a conflict shall provide all civilian hospitals with certificates showing that they are civilian hospitals and that the buildings which they occupy are not used for any purpose which would deprive these hospitals of protection in accordance with Article 19.

Civilian hospitals shall be marked by means of the emblem provided for in Article 38 of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949, but only if so authorized by the State.

The Parties to the conflict shall, in so far as military considerations permit, take the necessary steps to make the distinctive emblems indicating civilian hospitals clearly visible to the enemy land, air and naval forces in order to obviate the possibility of any hostile action.

In view of the dangers to which hospitals may be exposed by being close to military objectives, it is recommended that such hospitals be situated as far as possible from such objectives.
https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/1595a804df7efd6bc125641400640d89/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5?OpenDocument

It is pretty clear that, as a minimum, the place did not have the markings on the roof. It is extremely unlikely that we fired on a building marked with the Red Cross, Red Crescent, or other equivalent emblem.

edgeplay_cgo wrote:
Why did a tank have to "break into" the compound? Were they barred at the front door?

It was an APC. Given that it belonged to a power which had just shot up the hospital, and that as a neutral hospital it isn't supposed to permit armed parties to the conflict to enter (doing so would lose it protection under the GCs) then permitting an armoured vehicle to enter is emphatically not something they should do.

I was referring to the hospital allowing a party of US troops on foot, onto the ground to inspect the place. We have the right to do that.

_________________
- Dennis

Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival."
-Sir Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group